Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The House of Representatives voted to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress—making them the first former presidents to receive this sanction. The Justice Department now has to decide whether to prosecute them.
Nine Democrats joined Republicans to advance the contempt resolution against Bill Clinton. Three Democrats supported the one against Hillary. When the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia of California, says “no one is above the law” while voting to hold the Clintons in contempt, you’re looking at something more than a political show.
The question now is whether the Trump administration will treat this referral like it treated Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro—both prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms for refusing congressional subpoenas—or like it treated Eric Holder and Merrick Garland, whose contempt citations went nowhere.
What Happened
The House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton as part of an investigation into how federal law enforcement handled the Jeffrey Epstein case. The committee voted to approve the subpoenas in July 2025, which were formally issued on August 5, 2025, requiring both Clintons to appear for depositions under oath.
Bill Clinton was scheduled to appear October 14, 2025. His attorney, David E. Kendall, asked to reschedule because of a funeral. The committee agreed and moved it to December 17. Then Kendall asked to reschedule again for another funeral. The committee said fine, propose some dates in January.
Kendall never proposed dates. Instead, on January 3, 2026, he sent a letter arguing that a deposition would be “unfair” and offering a sworn written statement instead. The Oversight Committee rejected this. Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses can’t impose their own conditions on congressional inquiries—a deposition subpoena means you show up in person.
On January 12, Kendall and new counsel from Jenner & Block sent another letter claiming the subpoenas were “invalid and legally unenforceable” because they served no real reason to pass new laws and amounted to harassment. The committee responded the same day: show up tomorrow or we’re initiating contempt proceedings.
He didn’t show up. Thirteen minutes after his required appearance time on January 13, 2026, he sent a written declaration offering what he claimed was all relevant information. That didn’t satisfy the legal requirement to appear in person.
Hillary Clinton followed the same pattern. Scheduled for October 9, rescheduled to December 18 for a funeral, then moved to January 14. She also declined to propose alternative dates and failed to appear on January 14.
Within days, the Oversight Committee voted to advance contempt resolutions. The full House followed.
The Contempt Statute and Prosecutorial Discretion
The federal contempt statute makes it unlawful to “willfully refuse to appear when Congress orders you to.” Maximum penalty: $100,000 fine and twelve months in prison. It’s a misdemeanor, not a felony, but it’s still a federal crime.
The word “willfully” doesn’t require bad faith or malicious intent. Federal courts have interpreted it to mean the refusal was deliberate and intentional. If you got the subpoena, understood what it required, and chose not to comply—that’s willful.
When someone refuses a congressional subpoena, the procedure is straightforward: the committee votes on contempt, the full chamber votes, and if it passes, the Speaker certifies the contempt citation to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. At that point, the statute says the U.S. Attorney “must refer the matter to a grand jury.”
Justice Department legal advisors issued opinions in 1984 and 2014 concluding that the Attorney General retains the power to decide whether to prosecute even after Congress votes. The reasoning: allowing Congress to compel prosecution would violate separation of powers by taking away the President’s constitutional power to decide which laws to enforce.
This interpretation has never been tested by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department can accept a contempt citation from Congress and then decline to prosecute, regardless of the strength of the case.
Who Gets Prosecuted and Who Doesn’t
Since 2008, the House has voted to hold at least six people in contempt of Congress: Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton. The Justice Department sought indictments in two cases: Bannon and Navarro.
Both were Trump administration officials who refused to cooperate with the House Select Committee investigating January 6. Both were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to federal prison. Bannon got four months. Navarro got four months. Both claimed they were following Trump’s instructions not to cooperate. The courts didn’t care—a private directive from the President doesn’t override a congressional subpoena.
All other contempt referrals went nowhere.
When the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt in 2012 over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious, the Justice Department declined to prosecute. Holder was the sitting Attorney General at the time, which created an obvious conflict of interest. The Department cited the President’s claim that certain information was confidential, then let it drop.
When the House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to produce audio recordings of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Biden, the Trump administration’s Justice Department declined to prosecute.
One factor matters more than any other: whether the witness is claiming the President has the right to keep certain information confidential. When those claims are involved, the Justice Department has historically been reluctant to prosecute, partly because such cases raise complex constitutional questions and partly because the Justice Department is often the entity making the claim on behalf of the President.
The Clinton cases don’t fit this pattern. They’re not claiming the President has the right to keep information confidential. They’ve argued the subpoenas are invalid because they serve no real reason to pass new laws and constitute political harassment.
The Clintons’ Legal Arguments
The Clintons’ legal team argues the subpoenas themselves are unconstitutional because Congress has no legitimate reason to investigate the Epstein case for purposes of passing new laws.
Based on Supreme Court rulings, Congress has broad investigative power but it’s not unlimited. Congress can’t use its subpoena power purely for law enforcement purposes or to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid reason to pass new laws. The Clintons argue that since the Epstein prosecution is over—Epstein is dead, Maxwell is in prison—there’s no law Congress could pass that would be informed by deposing the Clintons about their personal relationships with Epstein.
Courts generally trust Congress to decide what counts as a legitimate purpose. The Oversight Committee could plausibly argue it’s investigating whether federal law enforcement agencies need additional resources, oversight, or statutory authority to handle high-profile cases involving powerful defendants. Whether it’s the real purpose is a different question, but courts rarely second-guess Congress’s stated rationale.
The Clintons also argue the subpoenas constitute harassment. They offered to provide written statements. Oversight Committee members rejected alternative cooperation that might have satisfied legitimate informational needs. If the primary motivation was to embarrass rather than to gather information genuinely needed for legislation, that could be a problem.
But proving harassment is difficult. Congress has wide latitude to decide how to conduct its investigations, and depositions are a standard investigative tool. The fact that a witness finds the process uncomfortable or embarrassing doesn’t make it harassment.
The Separation of Powers Question
Underlying all of this is a constitutional question that has never been definitively resolved: Can the executive branch constitutionally refuse to prosecute contempt of Congress charges?
One view: Congress’s power to investigate is necessary for effective legislative oversight. As the Supreme Court stated in a 1927 ruling, Congress’s investigative authority must be broad because without it, Congress can’t gather the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. This power depends on the executive branch’s willingness to enforce subpoenas through prosecution. If the executive can simply refuse to prosecute, Congress’s investigative power becomes meaningless whenever the executive finds an investigation inconvenient.
The other view: The Constitution assigns to the President, not Congress, the authority to decide which laws to enforce and how to allocate prosecutorial resources. Allowing Congress to compel prosecution would give Congress power over the President in violation of the idea that the President and Congress should have equal power. The remedy for disputes over congressional subpoenas should be civil litigation, not criminal prosecution.
Justice Department legal advisors have endorsed the second view. But the Supreme Court has never directly held that the executive can refuse to prosecute contempt charges Congress has duly voted on.
These cases force the Trump administration to choose which interpretation it endorses in practice.
The Political Calculation
Prosecuting the Clintons would expose the administration to accusations that it’s using the courts as a political weapon against opponents. Watchdog groups have documented that federal judges from both parties have accused Justice Department lawyers in the current administration of breaking professional rules, such as making misleading statements to courts and failing to follow ethical guidelines. The administration has removed internal oversight systems that were supposed to prevent law enforcement from being used for political purposes.
In this context, any decision to prosecute the Clintons risks being interpreted as political retaliation rather than fair law enforcement.
But declining to prosecute carries its own risks. It would suggest that former presidents are above the law and that Congress’s investigative power has been rendered meaningless. It would establish that sophisticated defiance of Congress—hire good lawyers, make procedural arguments, offer written statements instead of testimony—is a viable strategy for avoiding accountability.
And it would be inconsistent with the Justice Department’s decision to prosecute Bannon and Navarro, who were prosecuted for the same conduct: refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.
The difference is that Bannon and Navarro were Trump allies being prosecuted by a Biden Justice Department. The Clintons are Trump opponents potentially being prosecuted by a Trump Justice Department.
What Happens Next
The House is expected to vote on the contempt resolutions within days. Once the vote passes, the Speaker will certify the contempt citations to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, formally referring the cases to the Justice Department.
The Justice Department faces no statutory deadline for deciding whether to prosecute. In the Bannon case, the Department moved relatively quickly—indicting him roughly a month after the House vote. These cases involve different legal issues. The Department may take months to analyze whether the subpoenas were valid, whether the Clintons’ refusal was legally justified, and whether prosecution serves the public.
If the Justice Department decides to prosecute, it would need to get formal charges approved by a federal grand jury. That typically takes several weeks to several months. Following indictment, the Clintons would likely file legal challenges before trial, questioning the validity of the subpoenas and the constitutionality of the contempt statute as applied to former presidents. Those motions could take many months to litigate.
If the case proceeds to trial, the trial would probably happen months or years later. The Bannon case saw an eight-month gap between indictment and trial. If convicted, the Clintons would have the right to appeal, which would add another year or more.
The extended timeline means the contempt cases would remain active political controversies well into 2027 or 2028.
Congressional Oversight and Investigative Power
Congressional oversight depends on the ability to compel testimony from reluctant witnesses. Without enforceable subpoenas, Congress cannot effectively investigate executive branch misconduct, waste, or abuse of power. This affects everything from national security oversight to financial regulation to civil rights enforcement.
If the Justice Department declines to prosecute, future witnesses—particularly wealthy, politically connected individuals—will know they can hire sophisticated lawyers, make procedural objections, and simply refuse to appear. The contempt statute becomes unenforceable. Congressional investigations become exercises that powerful witnesses can ignore with impunity.
If the Justice Department prosecutes, it establishes that no one is exempt from congressional subpoenas based on status or political connections. That principle applies equally to future Democratic and Republican administrations. It means Congress retains meaningful investigative authority regardless of which party controls the White House.
The decision also affects how Congress conducts oversight. If contempt referrals are seen as purely partisan exercises with no real consequences, committees may issue fewer subpoenas and rely more on voluntary cooperation. That would weaken Congress’s ability to investigate when voluntary cooperation isn’t forthcoming—which is precisely when investigative power matters most.
The Core Question
Does Congress have real power to compel testimony, or is that power subject to executive veto?
If the Justice Department prosecutes the Clintons, it signals that congressional subpoenas carry meaningful legal consequences regardless of the political affiliation of the witness or the partisan origins of the investigation. It proves Congress’s power to demand testimony works and establishes that the contempt statute has teeth.
If the Justice Department declines to prosecute despite the bipartisan House vote, it demonstrates that the President retains effective control over whether congressional subpoenas are enforceable through criminal law. It shows that contempt of Congress is a crime in name only when the witness is politically prominent. It signals that sophisticated defiance is the realistic alternative for those who believe they have legitimate reasons to avoid testifying.
Either choice establishes a precedent that will guide how future administrations handle contempt referrals. Either choice shapes the balance of power between the branches for years to come.
The decision belongs to Attorney General Pamela Bondi and career prosecutors at the Justice Department. They’re supposed to make prosecution decisions based on whether the law was broken and standard Justice Department rules, not political calculation.
The House voted. Now we wait to see if the vote meant anything.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.